Author Topic: N1K2-J WEP Climb Issue (Read 816 times)

funked · « **on:** October 18, 2000, 03:08:00 AM »

I took a N1K2-J with 100% fuel and did some climbs using the default autospeed setting. Everything looked OK until I got near 20,000 feet.

Altitude (ft), MIL RoC (fpm), WEP RoC (fpm)
20,000, 2250, 2500
25,000, 1500, 1700
30,000, 700, 850

At this altitude the plane only had about 90% fuel so the numbers might be inflated a little.

But if you check out the official chart (below), the plane should climb the same with MIL or WEP settings above 18k or so. But in my test I found a climb rate increase with WEP.

The difference is not nearly big enough to support some of the fantastic claims by the wh... uh players (like N1K2-J outclimbing P-38L at 25k) but it looks like the arena performance doesn't match the charts.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-18-2000).]

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-18-2000).]

funked · « **Reply #1 on:** October 18, 2000, 07:17:00 PM »

Punt!

So much N1K2-J whining but nobody's interested in facts...

Lephturn · « **Reply #2 on:** October 18, 2000, 09:04:00 PM »

I am funked. I also know that Pyro may pay attention to your tests, where the general whining has no chance at all.

And rightly so.

Thanks for being one of the few who actually took the time to test something instead of just endlessly whining about the perceived problems. Cheers, I appreciate that you took the time to test it. If only more folks would do the same!

------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com

"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
- Steve Earl

Yeager · « **Reply #3 on:** October 18, 2000, 10:14:00 PM »

What about the 1C?

Although Im not sure this particular test would be of any relevance to my observations
about energy retention in the Hog beast.

Im also beginning to wonder if automatic trim is playing any role in enhanced energy retention in extended high G manoevers. Especially at high altitude where the air is....you know......thinner.

Just a thought, a silly thought.......

Lep, whats the best method for testing energy retention? Is there any material pertaining to the real ships for cross referencing?

Yeager

[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 10-18-2000).]

Minotaur · « **Reply #4 on:** October 18, 2000, 10:16:00 PM »

Any reason not to do these tests in the TA where fuel burn is not an issue?

------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew

"Anyway, more golf..."
Humble

juzz · « **Reply #5 on:** October 19, 2000, 02:13:00 AM »

TA? He would have done them offline at 1:1 fuel burn Minotaur...

Yeager, pick a speed, pick a G load, pull flat 360º turns and read the exit speeds.

FWIW: The -1C climbs about 100fpm better than the -1D. Third time I've posted that now.

funked · « **Reply #6 on:** October 19, 2000, 02:27:00 AM »

Juzz, what Mino means is that the TA uses a really tiny fuel multiplier (like .01) so that fuel burn is negligible. I'll do that, but if the results are more than 5% different I'll eat my hat.

But the problem here is that the N1K2 is getting extra thrust from WEP above 18k when the charts say it shouldn't. That result wont change.

PS One reason to use a realistic (1.0) fuel multiplier is that the result will be comparable to real life flight tests. They didn't have fuel multipliers in real life, and they sure as hell didn't tow the N1K2 up to 20k then start the engine to get a climb speed reading.

Yeager, Wells has already dealt with the energy retention subject in detail. It seems you breezed through the thread in question without noticing this so you might want to read it again: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/005416.html

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-19-2000).]

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-19-2000).]

Lephturn · « **Reply #7 on:** October 19, 2000, 06:49:00 AM »

Yeager,

I would test depending on what you want to demonstrate. If you want to test 180 degree flat reversals or 360 degree turns, that will give you some idea about energy retention in maneuvers. What wells has done is great stuff, but I think some testing on how much speed is lost in a flat turn would be useful.

The setup is the tricky part, but here is one suggestion:

Log into the TA.
Grab a plane, 100% fuel, most common ordinance load, but clean config.
Pick a big flat area with some visible landmarks, a 0 alt. main base works well.
Stay within 1k of the ground, a few hundred feet is better, as close as you can.
Trim the aircraft to a particular speed that all of the aircraft you test can reach in level flight, say 250 mph.
Line up with a landmark, then turn 360 degrees pulling a constant G load, say 4 G's, or whatever is most appropriate.
Record the times to make that 360 and the exit speeds.

FILM the tests so you can show Pyro if you find something. Also, you could skip recording any numbers in the tests this way, and just go back and look at the film after if you like. The film updates may not be fast enough for the accuracy you need though.

You could do these tests with and without combat trim if you have time, or just one way as long as you are consistent.

BTW, about the fuel multiplier issue. Your 1:1 fuel multiplier is not really correct. These planes would fly for MUCH longer in the real world, we burn fuel much faster in AH to account for the terrain being smaller. It has to be this way or it would take to long to find a fight. We can't have 5 hour combat sorties in the game.

I'd test in the TA to eliminate this issue all together. In addition, this way the tests are done online, so it's real in-game conditions with the real host instead of using the client side mini-host.

------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com

"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
- Steve Earl

Vermillion · « **Reply #8 on:** October 19, 2000, 06:56:00 AM »

Lephturn, unless something has changed (in 1.04) the terrain scaling and fuel burn rates at full throttle settings are dead on (somewhat off at reduced throttle settings, according to Funked).

The terrain is built so that 1 mile in the terrain corresponds to one "performance" mile in the aircraft.

And the fuel burn multiplier works as advertised.

IMO the reason it feels to most people like our planes dont' fly as long as the real ones, is two factors.

The 1st is the obvious one, the fuel burn multiplier.

The 2nd is that in RL pilots used cruise settings to extend mission ranges, while in AH 90% of the people firewall the throttle and leave it there (oh except for the times they hit WEP

).

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

juzz · « **Reply #9 on:** October 19, 2000, 07:15:00 AM »

Yep, cruise settings are waaaay porked. For example at the maximum continuous cruise setting for the Lancaster; 2650 RPM and +4lbs boost - the aircraft just falls out of the sky. It's supposed to be doing about 230mph!

funked · « **Reply #10 on:** October 19, 2000, 07:16:00 AM »

FWIW measuring speed lost or altitude lost is the same thing. Energy is energy. So whatever is easiest for the test pilot is the way to go.

The beauty of Wells' method is that you are measuring the energy loss in a steady-state situation instead of a transient maneuver like the 4g turn at a constant altitude. So if you want to compare with a theoretical prediction, you only need a steady state model, which you can do with pencil and paper, instead of a transient model which means you have to build your own sim. Also you can record your data over a longer period, reducing error.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-19-2000).]

funked · « **Reply #11 on:** October 19, 2000, 07:35:00 AM »

To back up what Verm said, it's the fuel burn rate multiplier that is causing the reduced endurance in the Main Arena. The multiplier is not set to 1.0, it's set to 2.0 or 2.5. If you set it to 1.0 the endurance at full throttle is pretty darn close to the real deal.

funked · « **Reply #12 on:** October 19, 2000, 08:30:00 AM »

BTW Thx Lephturn.

juzz · « **Reply #13 on:** October 19, 2000, 10:46:00 AM »

Sooooo, that GEORGE has cheaty-boost WEP over 18k, eh? Hmmmm... (rubs chin)

Minotaur · « **Reply #14 on:** October 19, 2000, 01:27:00 PM »

Off topic a little. Here the results of my testing performed for the P-51D.

I tested in the TA with 100% fuel, no DT's. For Wep testing, I lowered altitude 2k after Wep quit. I let the Wep reset fully, then re-engaged Wep to obtain data pionts.

Actual Mil and Wep climbrates

Actual Wep vs AH Wep (chart) climbrate

AH Chart for P-51d climb

------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew

"Anyway, more golf..."
Humble

[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 10-19-2000).]